This ruling clarifies pardon scope but represents routine judicial boundary-setting rather than constitutional crisis. A-score: Election(1) - tangentially related to Jan 6 aftermath; Rule_of_law(3) - judge enforces legal boundaries on pardon power, affirming financial obligations remain; Separation(3) - judicial check on executive pardon scope, but within established framework. Severity reduced (0.9/0.9/1.0) as this is clarification not expansion of power. Mechanism modifier 1.15 for judicial action establishing boundaries. Base: (1×0.22 + 3×0.18 + 3×0.16)×0.81×1.15 = 11.35. B-score: High media appeal (Layer1: 22/40×0.55=30.25%) - 'pardon isn't refund' is quotable, plays into Jan 6 controversy. Layer2 strong (26/40×0.45=29.25%) - mismatch between pardon expectations and reality, timing amid ongoing pardon debates, pattern-matches to 'limits on Trump' narrative. Intentionality moderate (6/15) for continuing pardon controversy discourse. Final B: 26.65. D-score: -15.3 strongly negative indicates distraction dominates. Constitutional impact minimal (routine judicial clarification), but hype substantial due to Jan 6/Trump pardon controversy.